Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00160)

----------
> From: Blavatsky Archives <blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Bill's Suggestion to "Get a life, man", etc. etc.
> Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:51 PM
> 
> 
> Bill, you wrote in your best style:

Not my 'best' style, but I can see how you might think that after
comparison.

> > Daniel why have you decided that it was once again
> > time to "review [e.g.
> > the quality of scholarship of Johnson's books as
> > reflected in the accuracy,
> > etc. of
> > Johnson's research/statements]?"
> > What has prompted this outpouring of anti-Johnson
> > rhetoric again? Did you
> > suddenly realize that Paul was still alive and doing
> > well despite your best
> > efforts to bury him?
> 
> 
> Dear Bill, since Brigitte decided to write what she
> did in the following post:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4623
> 
> and seemed to convey to readers that Cranston's book
> is "theosophical propaganda" whereas Johnson's and
> Godwin's and Deveney's books are in a different
> category of "the real valuable books", I thought it
> might be useful to point out that ALL the books
> mentioned in Brigitte's post need to be looked at very
> closely for biases, mistakes, omissions, etc.

But you have not pointed out that ALL the books mentioned in Brigitte's
post need to be looked at very closely for biases, mistakes, omissions,
etc. Your posts only point out that PAUL's books mentioned in Brigitte's
post need to be looked at very closely for biases, mistakes, omissions,
etc.

> For
> example, Pratt and I tried to show some of the flaws
> with Johnson's books.

Pratt's article is one giant personal attack on Paul. As such, any small
points he may have scored for historical research and scholarship are
rendered invisible. You follow Pratt's example and end with Pratt's
results: invisible points.

Certainly it could be done to
> Cranston's book as well the other titles mentioned. 

Why don't you give us a little taste of 'Daniel does Sylvia' then? That
would bring something new to the discussion. Instead, you regurgitate the
sour taste that Paul has left in your stomach over and over and over and
over and over.

> Why is it that Cranston's book is the only one to be
> "propaganda" or "biased", if that is the contention
> Brigitte is trying to suggest?
>

Are you asking me what I think with the above question mark or are you
suggesting that that is the contention Brigitte is trying to suggest? 

> I detect biases and suppositions in the other books
> mentioned by Brigitte. Nevertheless all of them
> including the Cranston book are valuable expositions
> and should be read and studied by persons interested
> in Blavatsky.

Every book ever written has biases and suppositions [including HPB's]. 
Most certainly including yours. My posts have my biases and suppositions. 
The very idea that you present yourself (intentionally or not) as the
authority on biases and suppositions and yet seem so completely unable to
see your own is what makes you your worst enemy. What are your biases and
suppositions? 

snip

> Thanks for your advise, Bill.

Don't mention it. Glad I could help.

snip

Bill

> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc